Comparative performance assessment of commercially available automatic external defibrillators: A simulation and real-life measurement study of hands-off time

Simone Savastano, Vincenzo Vanni, Roman Burkart, Maurizio Raimondi, Fabrizio Canevari, Simone Molinari, Enrico Baldi, Aurora I. Danza, Maria Luce Caputo, Romano Mauri, Francois Regoli, Giulio Conte, Claudio Benvenuti, Angelo Auricchio

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose Early and good quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) improve cardiac arrest patients’ survival. However, AED peri- and post-shock/analysis pauses may reduce CPR effectiveness. Methods The time performance of 12 different commercially available AEDs was tested in a manikin based scenario; then the AEDs recordings from the same tested models following the clinical use both in Pavia and Ticino were analyzed to evaluate the post-shock and post-analysis time. Results None of the AEDs was able to complete the analysis and to charge the capacitors in less than 10 s and the mean post-shock pause was 6.7 ± 2.4 s. For non-shockable rhythms, the mean analysis time was 10.3 ± 2 s and the mean post-analysis time was 6.2 ± 2.2 s. We analyzed 154 AED records [104 by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) rescuers; 50 by lay rescuers]. EMS rescuers were faster in resuming CPR than lay rescuers [5.3 s (95%CI 5–5.7) vs 8.6 s (95%CI 7.3–10). Conclusions AEDs showed different performances that may reduce CPR quality mostly for those rescuers following AED instructions. Both technological improvements and better lay rescuers training might be needed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)12-17
Number of pages6
JournalResuscitation
Volume110
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Defibrillators
Hand
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Shock
Emergency Medical Services
Manikins
Heart Arrest
Survival

Keywords

  • AED
  • CPR
  • Hands-off time
  • Resuscitation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine
  • Emergency
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Comparative performance assessment of commercially available automatic external defibrillators : A simulation and real-life measurement study of hands-off time. / Savastano, Simone; Vanni, Vincenzo; Burkart, Roman; Raimondi, Maurizio; Canevari, Fabrizio; Molinari, Simone; Baldi, Enrico; Danza, Aurora I.; Caputo, Maria Luce; Mauri, Romano; Regoli, Francois; Conte, Giulio; Benvenuti, Claudio; Auricchio, Angelo.

In: Resuscitation, Vol. 110, 01.01.2017, p. 12-17.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Savastano, S, Vanni, V, Burkart, R, Raimondi, M, Canevari, F, Molinari, S, Baldi, E, Danza, AI, Caputo, ML, Mauri, R, Regoli, F, Conte, G, Benvenuti, C & Auricchio, A 2017, 'Comparative performance assessment of commercially available automatic external defibrillators: A simulation and real-life measurement study of hands-off time', Resuscitation, vol. 110, pp. 12-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.10.006
Savastano, Simone ; Vanni, Vincenzo ; Burkart, Roman ; Raimondi, Maurizio ; Canevari, Fabrizio ; Molinari, Simone ; Baldi, Enrico ; Danza, Aurora I. ; Caputo, Maria Luce ; Mauri, Romano ; Regoli, Francois ; Conte, Giulio ; Benvenuti, Claudio ; Auricchio, Angelo. / Comparative performance assessment of commercially available automatic external defibrillators : A simulation and real-life measurement study of hands-off time. In: Resuscitation. 2017 ; Vol. 110. pp. 12-17.
@article{48f318629390466ab967d2a219730775,
title = "Comparative performance assessment of commercially available automatic external defibrillators: A simulation and real-life measurement study of hands-off time",
abstract = "Purpose Early and good quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) improve cardiac arrest patients’ survival. However, AED peri- and post-shock/analysis pauses may reduce CPR effectiveness. Methods The time performance of 12 different commercially available AEDs was tested in a manikin based scenario; then the AEDs recordings from the same tested models following the clinical use both in Pavia and Ticino were analyzed to evaluate the post-shock and post-analysis time. Results None of the AEDs was able to complete the analysis and to charge the capacitors in less than 10 s and the mean post-shock pause was 6.7 ± 2.4 s. For non-shockable rhythms, the mean analysis time was 10.3 ± 2 s and the mean post-analysis time was 6.2 ± 2.2 s. We analyzed 154 AED records [104 by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) rescuers; 50 by lay rescuers]. EMS rescuers were faster in resuming CPR than lay rescuers [5.3 s (95{\%}CI 5–5.7) vs 8.6 s (95{\%}CI 7.3–10). Conclusions AEDs showed different performances that may reduce CPR quality mostly for those rescuers following AED instructions. Both technological improvements and better lay rescuers training might be needed.",
keywords = "AED, CPR, Hands-off time, Resuscitation",
author = "Simone Savastano and Vincenzo Vanni and Roman Burkart and Maurizio Raimondi and Fabrizio Canevari and Simone Molinari and Enrico Baldi and Danza, {Aurora I.} and Caputo, {Maria Luce} and Romano Mauri and Francois Regoli and Giulio Conte and Claudio Benvenuti and Angelo Auricchio",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.10.006",
language = "English",
volume = "110",
pages = "12--17",
journal = "Resuscitation",
issn = "0300-9572",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative performance assessment of commercially available automatic external defibrillators

T2 - A simulation and real-life measurement study of hands-off time

AU - Savastano, Simone

AU - Vanni, Vincenzo

AU - Burkart, Roman

AU - Raimondi, Maurizio

AU - Canevari, Fabrizio

AU - Molinari, Simone

AU - Baldi, Enrico

AU - Danza, Aurora I.

AU - Caputo, Maria Luce

AU - Mauri, Romano

AU - Regoli, Francois

AU - Conte, Giulio

AU - Benvenuti, Claudio

AU - Auricchio, Angelo

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Purpose Early and good quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) improve cardiac arrest patients’ survival. However, AED peri- and post-shock/analysis pauses may reduce CPR effectiveness. Methods The time performance of 12 different commercially available AEDs was tested in a manikin based scenario; then the AEDs recordings from the same tested models following the clinical use both in Pavia and Ticino were analyzed to evaluate the post-shock and post-analysis time. Results None of the AEDs was able to complete the analysis and to charge the capacitors in less than 10 s and the mean post-shock pause was 6.7 ± 2.4 s. For non-shockable rhythms, the mean analysis time was 10.3 ± 2 s and the mean post-analysis time was 6.2 ± 2.2 s. We analyzed 154 AED records [104 by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) rescuers; 50 by lay rescuers]. EMS rescuers were faster in resuming CPR than lay rescuers [5.3 s (95%CI 5–5.7) vs 8.6 s (95%CI 7.3–10). Conclusions AEDs showed different performances that may reduce CPR quality mostly for those rescuers following AED instructions. Both technological improvements and better lay rescuers training might be needed.

AB - Purpose Early and good quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) improve cardiac arrest patients’ survival. However, AED peri- and post-shock/analysis pauses may reduce CPR effectiveness. Methods The time performance of 12 different commercially available AEDs was tested in a manikin based scenario; then the AEDs recordings from the same tested models following the clinical use both in Pavia and Ticino were analyzed to evaluate the post-shock and post-analysis time. Results None of the AEDs was able to complete the analysis and to charge the capacitors in less than 10 s and the mean post-shock pause was 6.7 ± 2.4 s. For non-shockable rhythms, the mean analysis time was 10.3 ± 2 s and the mean post-analysis time was 6.2 ± 2.2 s. We analyzed 154 AED records [104 by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) rescuers; 50 by lay rescuers]. EMS rescuers were faster in resuming CPR than lay rescuers [5.3 s (95%CI 5–5.7) vs 8.6 s (95%CI 7.3–10). Conclusions AEDs showed different performances that may reduce CPR quality mostly for those rescuers following AED instructions. Both technological improvements and better lay rescuers training might be needed.

KW - AED

KW - CPR

KW - Hands-off time

KW - Resuscitation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84993968375&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84993968375&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.10.006

DO - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.10.006

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84993968375

VL - 110

SP - 12

EP - 17

JO - Resuscitation

JF - Resuscitation

SN - 0300-9572

ER -